Which website development software?

[Dave Anderson NH]

I have to get off my posterior and get going and do a website for the Chester Toolworks. I'm aware of and have studied a bit on both MS Frontpage and on Macromedias Dreamweaver. I figure that Dreamweaver is too expensive for my budget and would never get enough use to justify the expense. Front Page seems reasonable in price and has the advantage of using an interface I'm familiar with from the various other MS software I use.

Does anyone know of any other reasonable software for website deveopment in terms of reasonable price to functionality ratio? I know I could limp along with Publisher or even Word, but I don't want to, and I sure don't want to make the effort to expand or perfect my HTML skills. The skimy offerings of some of the website hosts also seems a bit suspect to me and I hate buying something without any knowledge of its functionality and user friendliness. I've set myself a deadline for purchase of the next 9 days. If I don't set a deadline, I'll just procrastinate again.

[Dan Moening]

I'm new to this forum but I thought I've seen your work on a website somewhere already?

At any rate I've not used either FP or DW but I've seen their results. Lots of unneeded overhead that can cause slow loading.

If you have decent HTML skills all you really need is an editor, tag checker, and a way to publish the site, right? Here are 3 very inexpensive tools that will do these things:

Notetab Pro
Terrapin FTP
Tag Check

Tag Check is no longer supported but as a plugin to Notetab I've never had a problem with it. It is limited to HTML 4.0 tags.

Xenu
is a program that will check for broken links internally and externally to your webpage. It can be run against your "index.html" locally before you upload the site so you can be assured your not submitting pages with "dead" links.

That's all I know.

[Ken Garlock]

Dave, If I were you, I would steer clear of Front Page. It is a PIG. I have only built a couple web pages, and I used Front Page for them. A work colleague who could write straight HTML did a similar page in about 1/3rd the commands used by Front Page.

Because it is so generalized, it has many extra commands inserted into the HTML in order to do a programming CYA. A person who will take the time to learn HTML can crank out web pages pretty quickly. But, I am not one of them, and I have only one data point regarding Front Page.
You can think of Front Page as higher level compiler like Cobol, Fortran, C, or C++. OTOH, HTML coding is like using an assembly language on a computer where you write every instruction the computer executes, the difference is that HTML is transportable between machines, and if you learn it once, it is good everywhere.

As always, my opinions are worth what you paid for them

[Matt Meiser]

A significant number of my projects involve at least some sort of web interface. I've never used Dreamweaver, but I've used several other HTML editors, including Frontpage. None have done as good of a job as I could do myself. That said, I will sometimes use Frontpage to get a page started, but as Microsoft has "improved" it, I find myself using it less and less. My most recent project I've just used the text editor in Visual Studio .net.

If you plan to support dynamic content and online ordering, Frontpage won't get you there any better than using Word or Publisher.

The bottom line is that if you plan to go with a simple site layout and no dynamic content, and if your hosting provider supports Frontpage extensions, you will probably be well served by Frontpage. As your HTML skills expand, you'll probably want to look at other alternatives.

BTW, Microsoft has some sort of online demo of Frontpage 2003 at http://www.runaware.com/microsoft/frontpage2003/. I haven't tried it, so no idea how well it works.

[Ian Barley]

I use frontpage and it does what I need and does it without me having to spend hours hand rolling code.

If you are using your site for business and you are all of the business then update speed is very important because if you are successful you won't have loads of spare time for site updates.

My vote goes for frontpage.

[Jim Becker]

I used to use FrontPage, but got tired of the many, many incompatibilities with browsers other than IE as well as bloated code. Switching to Dreamweaver MX was the best decision I ever made in that respect. Yes, it isn't inexpensive, but it's really a complete development environment with a huge amount of flexibiliy. It will also let you design your site "up front" using the latest methods, such as CSS (cascading syle sheets) rather than messy and complex itterations of tables. IMHO, Dreamweaver has paid for itself very quickly in ease of use, higher quality of product and code produced and flexibility.

[Aaron Koehl]

I have to get off my posterior and get going and do a website for the Chester Toolworks. I'm aware of and have studied a bit on both MS Frontpage and on Macromedias Dreamweaver. I figure that Dreamweaver is too expensive for my budget and would never get enough use to justify the expense. Front Page seems reasonable in price and has the advantage of using an interface I'm familiar with from the various other MS software I use.

Having evaluated hundreds of web development tools, both professionally and on a budget, I figure I should chime in.

Web Professionals
Rather than repeating everything that's already been said, I'll synopsize a few products. Choosing a web development tool really depends on your purpose. If you want to storm the Internet, getting the website professionally developed will be your best bet. Choosing a professional can be rather difficult if you don't have anyone in the industry to consult with. "Professionals" range from great to poor, and every combination of cheap to expensive there is. You can often take advantage of geographic arbitrage by choosing web development firm in a less-costly area. For instance, a firm located 100 miles from here in the Washington DC area will usually cost 3 times as much on average as in our area.

FrontPage
Microsoft's FrontPage editor is, as much as I hate to admit, a great tool for the budding web developer. Don't go with anything less than FP 2003, as they recently revamped much of the software so it won't be such an HTML pig. Frontpage has always been known to generate very inefficient (large, slow) HTML code. However, FP 2003 generates more efficient and cleaner code than its predecessors. On the bright side, it is quite easy to use. To its advantage, FrontPage has better support for CSS than Dreamweaver. (Dreamweaver has excellent support for CSS, by the way). If you're not putting your site together with CSS, then it won't matter. If you're going to host on a Microsoft IIS server (Windows, *cough*), FrontPage has the advantage of very easy website deployment, as the editor and the server "speak the same language." I find FTP just as easy, however. FrontPage is the most product for the least price, if a WYSIWYG editor is what you're after.

Dreamweaver
Macromedia Dreamweaver is the professional development standard. A robust WYSIWYG editor, it has the flexibility to deploy the largest sites. Most people, as you stated, won't do enough business with it to justify its cost. I use it exclusively for HTML editing, and love it, as it generates great code. Primarily, it allows me to switch to HTML view, and supports code highlighting of several different languages, all within the same document. It is a little more difficult to use than FP, and it's more expensive, but for anyone doing design, it's a no-brainer.

GoLive
Adobe's GoLive still generates horribly inefficient code. On the other hand, it makes programming ASP pages simple with Adobe's pre-generated templates. You'll have to find a web host running IIS (Microsoft's web server) to use these programming extensions, as they typically use ADO to interface with Access databases and the like. Again, if you're not doing any programming, there is no advantage for GoLive over FP. (Not to say you can't program in FP).

I'll leave off NetObjects fusion, as it isn't really that interesting. It's expensive, but very quick to throw a website up, with an associated design. FogCreek makes an HTML editor as well called CityDesk.

Non-Mainstream Tools
Work Great! Notepad, HTMLEdit, NoteTab, etc all perform roughly the same tasks, albeit with different features. Code highlighting is a very convenient feature if you're not using a WYSIWYG editor.

There are literally TONS of free HTML editors out there, both WYSIWYG and straight HTML. There are a few other things to consider, however:

Speed
If you have a high-volume site, you'll really need to worry about speed. Since we're not talking about a high-volume site, bloated HTML really doesn't matter all that much, as it usually only represents 20% or less of a page's load time. By the time you start worrying about these considerations, you'll be consulting a professional anyway.

Design
When hiring a professional, this is what you're paying for. The truth is, anybody can string together HTML. Professionals will have invested in dozens of software products, graphics editors, code optimizers, stock photo libraries, and the like that the layman can't afford to buy. They are usually well versed in making a nice looking site, customized to your liking.


My Recommendation
Remember, putting up a website is a marketing effort.
The best bang for the buck, if you want a nice looking, functional site, is to get a copy of FrontPage for editing pages in "maintenance mode", but hire a professional for the initial work. You'll save a lot of headaches, and you'll likely come out with a much nicer result.

I would recommend even getting a pre-existing template, and having a professional customize it for you. By cutting out these primary design fees (down from thousands to under $100), you'll save in a number of ways. By following these recommendations, you'll save money outright. Most importantly, you'll save time from not having to learn all these new software products--and mastering them. You won't gain any marketing benefit by putting up a website that doesn't attract people, entice them to make a purchase, and have them use your site as a resource. You can have a more effective website, and reinvest the time you save toward other marketing efforts, and, most importantly, building your business!

(Note: I can say all this because I no longer depend on web design for my primary income.)

I tried to answer a bunch of questions in this 'treatise' on web design, but it would be much more effective for me to answer specific questions. No consulting charge for SawmillCreek members!!

[Dave Anderson NH]

I appreciate all of the responses and the information. I suspect I'll probably buy Frontpage. I don't want to spend a lot of time learning HTML, the amount I know is exceptionally limited. My website will start out small and will hopefully expand with time and as my skills improve. Unlike many of you folks, I'm not a software or any type of computer person and I'd actually like to keep it that way. I don't have the time to devote to a massive education program. Again, thanks for the help.

[Brian Hale]

I started out with Net Objects and moved up to Dreamweaver MX.

http://www.netobjects.com/

Brian